Several postings re the similarities/differences between anthropology=
&
sociology have focused mainly on the outcomes--what's been done--rather
than goals & methods. IMHO, as one who once taught in an unusually
harmonious joint department, the methods are what's different, not=
the
goals. Especially if one goes back to Durkheim & his era, he being=
a major
influence on both disciplines, the basic questions about the nature=
of
human beings in organized societies are not very, if at all, different.=
US
anthropology (as distinct from Durkheimian British social anthro.)=
did
interest itself in human origins and in archaeology as a means of=
data
collection, but, over-all, soc and anthro could pretty much agree=
on what
they wanted to know. The differences come in at the level of how=
& where
those fundamental questions get asked.

Anthropologists tended to work in non-western, small-scale communities.=
=20
That threw our emphasis in the directions of accounting for cultural
variation (and fighting ethnocentrism is a crucially important cornerstone
of anthropology) and long-term, local research. We usually did NOT=
have to
worry about sample adequacy, because we usually studied the whole
community. (That ignores whether the community was representative=
of
anything but itself--a notion only worried about more recently.)=
=20
Sociologists, for their part, mostly worked in their own, or very=
similar,
"modern," complex, industrial societies. Further, they mostly (and
especially in the origins of the field) worked in cities--the rise=
of
which, with what were perceived as associated "social problems",=
were what
stimulated much interest in the field. (It was no accident that=
both the
founding US dept. of soc., at U of Chicago, and Jane Addam's Hull=
House,
were both in Chicago at the same time, one of great immigration and=
urban
poverty.) =20

As a result of THEIR research settings, sociologists very early on=
had to
focus on the adequacy of their samples, and how one verified and=
evaluated
that adequacy. If you can only study part of Chicago, you'd better=
worry
about the relationship of that part to the whole. The consequence=
of this,
as one post put it, is that sociology nowadays does attract
number-crunching, statistically-minded sorts. Or, rather, it repells=
the
rest of us=8A But that difference, profound as it is, is not related=
to
fundamentals of 'social inquiry.' And a lot of the ferment, in various
directions, in anthropology in recent decades has resulted from some=
of
those same same sampling and verification, and observer-biases problems
being recognized as inherent in our field, too. Murdock & Co. aside,=
we
mostly have not found statistical solutions (or even recognized problems=
as
statistically expressed) in social anthro., but issues of intra-cultural
variation are another kind of 'sampling' problem. (if I can't dance,=
am I
still a member of a culture for which dance is a means of expression?=
=20
smile) =20

It IS possible, tho' difficult, to teach one intro course to both=
fields.=20
(And try finding a textbook that covers foraging societies and industrial
ones in one overall, adequate, framework!) We do have prejudices--I=
picked
anthro over soc when I was at the point of choice faced by the original
message in this thread in part because I could "read" anthropology,=
as
opposed to the turgid quality of much sociological prose. But the=
overall
goals have more in common than most practitioners, caught up in day-to-day
'mechanical' problems of each displine, ever stop to recognize.